EC Sends Statement of Objections To Microsoft For Violating Anti-Trust Agreement 173
dkleinsc writes "Three years ago, Microsoft came to an agreement with EU regulators that required them to provide users with a choice of web browsers. Last July, they found Microsoft in breach of that agreement. Today, they announced that this will result in charges, potentially resulting in fines as large as $7 billion."
Microsoft gets one last chance to defend itself.
The only way... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to make corporations behave is to make the fine firstly remove all profits from the nefarious acts and then add enough on top that the risk/reward ratio is larger than 1 so that they don't do bad things on the chance that they're not caught often enough to matter.
In other words, the fine must really hurt otherwise it's just the cost of doing business (c.f. the paltry 1bn that intel had to spend for years of blatantly illegal market fixing).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Corporations never do anything profitable. Just ask anyone in Hollywood. I suggest going after up to 200% of revenue directly or indirectly related.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Be that as it may, the fine should in my opinion be commensurate with the severity of the wrong. Microsoft has a dwindling brower share of a dwindling platform. It's impossible for it to dominate the internet anymore - as of late, Apple and Google have both proven themselves more adept at doing so. You don't throw people in prison for jaywalking; a fine of billions of euros would seem more like spitefulness than a reasoned response to a minor violation.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft has a dwindling brower share of a dwindling platform. It's impossible for it to dominate the internet anymore -
But they made a lot of money in the past through this domination. Basically, you're saying they should more or less get away with it because it no longer matters.
This case has been running a very long time.
With your suggestion, it is worth the corporation stalling for as long as possible. That way, the chances are if they can stall for 10 years or more, it won't be nearly as important.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
But they are getting away with it....
This case is not about past wrongs, it is about activity over the last year or so.
Re: (Score:2)
This case is not about past wrongs, it is about activity over the last year or so.
The only reason they have this is because of past wrongs.
In the criminal world it's like excusing a parole voilation because "the original crime was a long time ago".
Re: (Score:2)
p>But they made a lot of money in the past through this domination. Basically, you're saying they should more or less get away with it because it no longer matters.
This case has been running a very long time.
With your suggestion, it is worth the corporation stalling for as long as possible. That way, the chances are if they can stall for 10 years or more, it won't be nearly as important.
The point is to prevent them doing it again.
The prevention only works if it is simply not worth the risk.
I would think that the purpose behind an anti trust law is to prevent the monopoly from remaining a monopoly, and thereby allow competitors a chance to offer competition. Since the market resolved the issue without government intervention it's hard to argue that there really was a monopoly, or at least monopoly abuse, in this instance. I don't think that corporations will stall in the hopes that they'll lose marketshare. That wouldn't really be a Wall Street smart plan.
Re: (Score:2)
But they made a lot of money in the past through this domination. Basically, you're saying they should more or less get away with it because it no longer matters.
Precisely! When United States v. Microsoft was decided in 2000, instead of breaking up the company or forcing it to publish its source code - as had widely been speculated - the DoJ was satisfied with Microsoft promising not to do it again.
Imagine if the accused in a murder trial were to propose such an outcome. "Don't punish me for this murder, and I promise I shan't do it again in future (at least I won't murder the same guy again)".
Netscape was *already dead*. Promising not to kill it again was a fairly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't gotten away with it. They've already paid tremendous fines to the EU.
Why not? Microsoft no longer has the power to leverage their monopoly into web traffic. Worldwide, mobile web traffic share continues to increase and in some markets is on the verge of eclipsing desktop traffic, a trend that is likely to continue no matter what Microsoft does. When will Apple and Google be forced to offer browser selection? At what point does the already wounded g
Re: (Score:2)
What about the AppStore? Or whatever it's called now.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft was found in violation of monopoly laws because they have a near monopoly on desktop OS' and abused that position.
As much as I dislike Apples business practices: They have neither a (near) monoply on the phone market nor the tablet market. They are a very big player in both, but there is actual competition.
Re: (Score:2)
But 70%, easily, of their market share is because of their monopoly. So while they are no longer a monopoly on browser users they do on PCs.
But personally I do not even agree with the initial ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All they did was include only IE preinstalled on their OS. Somehow that is lawsuit-worthy?
Yes. They had a virtual monopoly on the PC desktop and were using that monopoly to attempt to monopolize another market: browsers.
Do I see Apple shipping computers with Firefox or IE on them?
Apple has no monopoly on anything.
I think the EU regulators are the ones who need to lay off the crack pipe
I think it's you who's sucking glass, son.
Re:The only way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the "American company" argument again...
Microsoft had a binding contract with the EU comission, and they broke it.
If they hadn't, the browser ballot would bee a thing of the past in a few months and nobody would care about it anymore.
But Microsoft fucked up, and now they have to face the music for breaking a contract.
And the EU doesn't treat American companies any different from European companies. Ask Gaz du France and E.on whether they liked their fines of half a billion Euro each for collusion: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39401 [europa.eu]
bundle (Score:3)
I could understand Microsoft being a pain in the browser department when they were building an entire stack on top of I.E. with:
a) Active Desktop / Channels
b) Active-x (i.e.windows binaries as a web format)
c) A specialized Java that ran much faster than standard Java
d) Deep ties with IIS
And then for the later IE6 years, I can understand the advantages of only offering a crippled web browser once they won the browser wars to keep people locked into the Microsoft desktop.
But today's newer web apps are being built browser and OS independent, a lot of them are built on Macs and a lot migrate their functionality over from Linux. IIS specific software isn't popular, and even where it is deep ties with IE isn't. Today's IE is rather full featured and aims at standards compliance.
You have to wonder why they can't just throw in Opera, Firefox, Chrome, Safari in a "other browsers" folder and be done with this whole mess. What is the logic from their perspective? Why even bother with this fight anymore. What do they get out of it?
Re: (Score:2)
What is the logic from their perspective? Why even bother with this fight anymore. What do they get out of it?
I as an individual do not get to break the rules and flaunt the punishment. Yet you are saying Microsoft should. Even though Microsoft crippled competition and the Internet for years!
All that todays more vibrant choices of browsers has shown. Is the need to protect competition and with it innovation against abuse monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
Where am I saying that? I'm saying I'm not even sure why Microsoft is bothering to break the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
For me, it was (and still is) the deep hentai-tentacle relationship that IE has with the win32 userspace on modern windows.
You can choose not to use IE as your browser, but if you use windows, you can't choose not to use IE completely. (Because components of IE are used in the default shell, explorer.exe)
I want to see windows and IE be completely seperate, independent entities.
THEN I could see merit in your argument. Let me *UNINSTALL* IE 100% cleanly, and without borking up the system. Then we can talk.
Re:bundle (Score:4, Informative)
Apple doesn't ban other browsers on iOS, there are dozens.
All the others are just skins running on top of the Safari renderer. Opera is the exception, and they are were only able to pull it off with a weird hack (with the renderer running sever-side).
Re: (Score:2)
why they can't just throw in Opera, Firefox, Chrome, Safari in a "other browsers" folder and be done with this whole mess. What is the logic from their perspective?
Because then they would be responsible for support of those browsers. Since they would ship with the product that you purchase from Microsoft, you can hold Microsoft accountable for that support.
Re: (Score:2)
Because then they would be responsible for support of those browsers. Since they would ship with the product that you purchase from Microsoft, you can hold Microsoft accountable for that support.
But you don't buy the OS from Microsoft unless it's an upgrade or you're building your own computer. You're not MS's customer, you're Dell's or HP's customer.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not MS's customer, you're Dell's or HP's customer.
Then Dell and HP should be the ones providing the alternate ballot box, not Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to wonder why they can't just throw in Opera, Firefox, Chrome, Safari in a "other browsers" folder and be done with this whole mess. What is the logic from their perspective? Why even bother with this fight anymore. What do they get out of it?
Um, freedom from lawsuits, for a start. Let's see, if they put Firefox on and the translation for some obscure language has mistakes in it - offensive mistakes - Microsoft now finds themselves in court defending their actions of including a defective product that they had no control over.
This isn't like a Linux distribution where it is clearly stated that it is a collection of random bits that have no affiliation with each other or the packager. Microsoft is delivering a unified product and goes to great
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for a good answer. I should mention that Apple for example used to bundle in lots of 3rd party applications: Omni Graffle and Omni Outliner which they couldn't directly support though they offered support contracts. Though I agree Microsoft hasn't done this as much with the default OS.
I'd assume Apple is willing to support Safari and Opera Software is willing to support Opera. Google isn't willing to support their own products so I assume no on Chrome. Mozilla Foundation just can't support Fir
Freedom from lawsuits? Obviously not. (Score:2)
I think the recent EU action demonstrates why that is not an actual benefit Microsoft receives from defying the rules it agreed to in settling the EU antitrust action.
you do not have permission (Score:1)
Hal, delete Internet Explorer (Score:2)
I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that
(Humor lesson... it's not the joke, it's how you tell it.)
Microsoft's bad decisions just keep coming (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a bad decision to tie the IE web browser function into the Windows operating system. It was a bad decision to fight the anti-monopoly folks when they came calling. It was a bad decision to drag their feet about offering browser alternatives in Windows. And, now, it has been a bad decision by Microsoft to blow off the EU regulators when they were ordered to include browser alternatives. Microsoft was gifted with their Windows monopoly thanks to being in the right place in the right year with the right software. Now, however, the world has moved on and the Windows monopoly is tottering. Microsoft should have just quietly enjoyed their monopoly while planning for its eventual demise rather than attempting to enjoy it in perpetuity. Now, the entire Microsoft 'empire' built on the Windows monopoly is in jeopardy...and the end will probably come much sooner than anyone thinks. It was stupid back a few years to ignore the EU and it is even more stupid now, given the new market realities that Microsoft faces. Microsoft needs new leadership...they need it really soon...and even then it might be too late.
Re: (Score:2)
was it a bad decision to bundle a TCP/IP stack into the Windows operating system?
Re: (Score:2)
was it a bad decision to bundle a TCP/IP stack into the Windows operating system?
No, because the TCP/IP stack is an industry standard. I hope that helps. Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
And the http/HTML stack isn't an industry standard?
Re: (Score:2)
Not if they manage to lock (99% of) the PC world in Microsoft UEFI-Hell. Browser wars are so passé. BIOS lockdowns are the new super weapon of Microsoft. I'm wondering how long it would take for the EU to issue anti-competitive rulings in this area too.
strange (Score:2)
which operating system has the largest number of different browsers available for it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdotters torn by conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
I admit it's hard to feel sorry for microsoft. Anytime you see a company that's been as consistently evil as someone like MS has been finally get taken down by an even bigger, meaner bully you can't help but feel a little gleeful.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should condemn microsoft because they actually are guilty as hell and DESERVE to suffer, and not just because we hate their guts?
We punish their reputation by boycotting them.
Re: (Score:3)
Either way works for me. Win-Win.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate bullies. That's why this video always puts a little smile on my face [youtube.com]
Microsoft gets body-slammed by the EU!
Re: (Score:2)
I feel sorry for them because this particular agreement should probably be void nowadays. I mean, IE is no longer dominant browser and MS no longer has anything close to monopoly there. The awareness of other browsers like Firefox and Chrome is very high, so I honestly don't see any problem with them doing it now.
Re:Slashdotters torn by conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
everybody knows that the ruling was politically motivated bullshit. Squeeze the american company for a few billion pesos.
You are aware that the economy of the European Union generates a GDP of over €12.629 trillion (US$17.578 trillion in 2011) ...and they were guilty as sin.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Frankly, if people are too lazy or disinterested to go try another web browser for themselves after the fact, I doubt they're going to know the difference, or care, when they have 5 options presented to them during an installation process they probably didn't go through since they bought a PC with the OS already installed and configured. I definitely don't think it is a $7 billion question. I doubt there is anything close to $7bn worth of equity in web browsers. They're all given away for free, except th
Re: (Score:2)
MS should not have to give users a choice in software.
If MS did not have a virtual monopoly in PC operating systems, it wouldn't matter very much. Since it does, however, its energetic and long-standing attempts to make the average, non-technical user forget that there are other browsers is culpable.
At one point in United States v. Microsoft, one of MS' highly-paid lawyers told the court with a straight face that IE was an organic part of the Windows operating system, and as such could not be separated from Windows or replaced by another browser without seriou
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes sense, except if you consider what is best for the users. A OS needs a set of basic included software products, and it is not at all better to ask the user for each one which one they prefer.
Are we going to fine Tim Hortons (THE canadian coffee shop) over not giving customers a choice over what type of beans goes in the default coffee? Are we going to fine Mcdonalds for not asking if a customer would possibly not prefer a Burger King burger instead?
This ruling shows an absolute disregard of what
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a huge fan of many of Microsoft's business practices, but the whole browser bundling issue was always pure bullshit.
Windows includes a lot of other bits of software that step on the toes of third-party software companies, too. MS correctly realized that a web browser was becoming an essential, ubiquitous piece of software. It is absurd to suggest they should have distributed a competitor's software in place of their own, and absurd to suggest that they should simply stay out of the market because th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can't install another browser on the iPad or iPhone?
Chrome
Dolphin
Opera
Mercury
Atomic
Dingo
Re:Well, the EU has to make money some how (Score:4, Informative)
Can't install another browser on the iPad or iPhone?
Chrome Dolphin Opera Mercury Atomic Dingo
Besides Opera those are all skins around Safari, they are not new browsers. Opera's a little special because it's not a browser, it's more like a browser previewer where the browser actually runs on Operas servers.
Re: (Score:2)
There are more problems with the arrangement on iOS.
First of all, the engine as it is provided to other apps is actually inferior compared to what Mobile Safari itself uses (IIRC, third parties don't get the faster JIT that came in iOS 5). So any third-party browser is automatically inferior in performance.
The other quirk is that Safari always remains the default browser - i.e. the app that opens when you click any link in any other app. If you want to use Chrome, you have to open things in Safari, and then
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Need a better summary. (Score:4, Insightful)
It shouldn't be revenue. Rather, it should be a portion of their profit.
There are a number of profitable businesses that never make a profit. Someone already mentioned movies. Every so often you see people burned by movie contracts that pay a percentage of the profits rather than a percentage of the revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Internet Explorer considered a free product they were giving away? ... Can someone explain it to me how it was damaging for them to do that?
Kryst, why do we keep having to explain this to newcomers (or people who have just woken up and missed the events of the last 15 years)? It was damaging because IE (and MS's HTML creation app, FrontPage) did not keep to the HTML standards : they used MS's own extensions. This meant that websites created by FrontPage, which seemed to be the majority at the time, could only be viewed the way the designer intended if you viewed them with IE.
This was deliberate MS policy to create the impression that othe
Re: (Score:2)
Something like a ban on Microsoft bidding for EU government contracts would do more damage.
I would like to see them invalidate their copyrights and patents to put into the public domain. That would hurt more than anything, but unfortunately, it's a pipe dream.
*sigh* If only the public would stand up and demand such things, or at the very least vote for people that represent the public's interest. Europe's multiple political parties, which are sabotaging their economies, are proving to be no better than the
Re:Fine (Score:4, Interesting)
I would like to see them invalidate their copyrights and patents to put into the public domain. That would hurt more than anything, but unfortunately, it's a pipe dream.
It's a pipe dream because if the EU did that, the U.S. might turn around and do the same with EU companies in the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a great thing for the rest of us who want to see the abolition of copyrights/patents altogether.
But, as you said, I'm looking forward to seeing rainbow shitting unicorns
Re:Fine (Score:4, Funny)
which would leave the world in a much better place.
Re:Fine (Score:4, Interesting)
I would like to see them invalidate their copyrights and patents
Invalidate their business license. It's as simple as that. I don't know why it isn't done more often. You mess up in a car and your driver's license is in jeapordy with points, suspension or revocation. Hold businesses accountable for their actions via the licensing system as well. QED.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What hurts the people more? Not being able to choose a browser, or not being able to buy Windows at all? As much as we like to think that Linux is a good OS, it's not a drop in replacement for Windows. You can't just tell MS that they can no longer do business at all in your country/continent. That would annoy a fair number of your citizens and cripple many businesses.
So, you seem to agree with the GP that Microsoft's copyrights should be invalidated in the EU, so everyone who wants can take any copy of Windows and install it on any computer they like. I agree with you, that's indeed a good and useful punishment.
I think this whole thing is a little stupid. You've always been able to install whatever browser you wanted to on your Windows machine with absolutely no trouble. They shouldn't need to present you with a nice little screen asking which one you want to install.
They shouldn't, but it doesn't hurt. It helps those that aren't able, because of lack of training and/or skills, to download an alternative browser by themselves.
Besides, Microsoft agreed previously with the EU that they will have that "nice little screen" in Win
Linux not a drop in replacement for Windows? (Score:3)
Web browsing, E-mail, Word Processing and Media Player, what's not good enough ?
Windows 7 Vs Ubuntu 9.04 [youtube.com], Sep 2009
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say the EU decided to bankrupt Microsoft... which is what invalidating copyrights would do. The patents could be sold off, but it is doubtful that they would be worth much - they might get $10 million for the whole package.
Why would this bankrupt Microsoft? Because Microsoft has no other asset than copyright on the software. The software by itself is worthless, as would quickly be found by everyone. I do not see that EU could isolate this to EU residents only - it would suddenly become legal to m
Re: (Score:2)
Last time there was a fine for this, together with all the non-compliance penalties etc over the years, the total cost to Microsoft was on the order of $2 billion.
Re: (Score:2)
MY question is... where the bloody hell do these fines go?!? Do they get given to the allegedly "harmed" consumers and businesses? Hell no! They get dropped into a giant government slush fund to pay for the next round of "legally required" pay rises for the "elected representatives".
Fines are a shitty way to deal with a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about the EC here, there are no "elected representatives". The 27 members of the College are appointed by the member states.
Re: (Score:2)
They're still elected, just not by the public.
Also, note the quotation marks. The more cynical among us argue that even the ones that actually are elected aren't really elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Who ARE you? Just, wow.
+1
The gp's comment is so stupid that it's either coming from a 3-year-old, or it's a troll.
Or, it's coming from a 3-year-old troll, using Windows8, natch.
cheers,
Re: (Score:2)
Sir, don't you realize that this is Slashdot, where my favorite distro of Linux is by far the superior OS, forever and for all time?!?!?
Re:Fine (Score:4, Funny)
And without that revenue from government contracts how do you expect them to keep innovating?
Catering to three year olds seems to be working for them.
Re:Look over there! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's not a valid defense. All that does is argue that Apple is committing the same crimes as Microsoft.
Another way of thinking about it: If I steal $1000, and you steal $2000, does that make me not guilty?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the argument.
The argument is that if it is ok for you to steal $2,000, why is it not ok for me to steal $1,000.
There is a big difference there.
You suggested that both our stealing is wrong. The defense would be "You seem ok with the other guy stealing $2,000. That suggests to us that this is a politically motivated action and not based on the merits of your case because if it were, we would expect suit against the more egregious offense where there is none".
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. I was merely adapting his analogy to more accurately fit how it could be used as a defense instead of the straw man he'd made ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but it's not the same crime. MS had to agree to this to avoid prosecution for (??abuse of monopoly?? maybe. I forget the exact charge). It did agree. Now it's broken the agreement with the court. So what we're back to is punishment for the crime for which they had originally been found guilty.
E.g., I have a distant relative who was arrested for drunk driving, and let off after promising the court not to drink anymore. He's now in the slammer because he showed up in court drunk on some other bu
Re: (Score:2)
No. Because Apple does not have a Monopoly or near Monopoly in a market segment. ("iPhones" and "iPads" are not a market segment, "smartphones" and "tablets" are.)
Microsoft wasn't fined for pushing IE, but for leveraging Windows' position as a Monopoly tu push IE.
Apple not doing what is at issue with MS (Score:4, Interesting)
No. First, because "someone else is also breaking the same law" is not a legally valid defense (in some cases, it may be a strategy to avoid or reduce charges you are facing, if the other someone is perceived by the government to be worse than you, and your cooperation actually makes it easier to hold them accountable.)
Second, because there doesn't appear to even be a colorable claim that Apple isn't doing what Microsoft is accused of doing, to wit, violating an agreement with the EU that was entered into as part of the settlement of a past antitrust action. The specific browser choice requirement Microsoft faces isn't a generally applicable rule, its a special restriction that Microsoft agreed to as part of settling charges of illegally leveraging a monopoly in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're already doing it on iOS (and getting away with it). The other browsers on iOS are just skins, using the Safari rendering engine.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking about iOS apps and that you're not allowed to list anything on the app store that competes against Apples own.
I guess they have two mitigating factors, firstly that its always been locked in, in that you've always bought the device knowing these limitations; rather than Windows where it was essentially open but they just tried to block certain applications. Secondly, and possibly more importantly, there is a competitor in Android that has by some metrics a larger user base than iOS.
It would s
Re: (Score:2)
essentially open but they just tried to block certain applications.
I never had any problems running Netscape or any other browser on any Windows PC during the old browser wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just feel like the legal standards being applied to the two companies don't match up too well.
Of course they don't, since MS was punished for monopoly abuse. You can't abuse a monopoly you don't have.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see an international law that says a corporation's country of origin is allowed to choose a charity to donate the money to.
Well, I guess that money would go to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, wouldn't it . . . ?
Re:Foul EU (Score:4, Informative)
7 billion? Somebody has to actually try to establish why its a 7billion fine.
Scaling. Because it doesn't do anything if you fine a company with 50k if said company makes 3 billion a quarter.
Re:Foul EU (Score:4, Insightful)
7 billion? Somebody has to actually try to establish why its a 7billion fine. What for?
Violating the terms of the settlement. And a big enough fine to make it not having been worth the effort to voilate the terms.
If the law can't prevent infractions, then it's toothless.
A Browser choice? Really? In 2012, 2011, 2010
Ah well, it's well past so we should let them off the hook. No! Of course not!
Today these idiots come from MS, tommorow it will be you, or your company, or your family
You mean these "idiots" coming at coportations who repeatedly break the law and making them stop? Of course you and your family should be above the law!
or your bank.
Which one? Both of mine are now owned by the government. Most of the rest are being investigated for large scale price fixing.
So, yeah, these "idiots" are coming at my bank. Good on them. Nail the bastards to the wall for illegal acts costing tens to hundreds of billions of dollars.
Through illegal companies have illegally enriched themselves (i.e. taken my money through illegal means) to the tune of hundreds of billions---vastly larger than all the thefts and burlgaries combined.
Yet you seem to think that people coming after them are "idiots" and somehow your or your family should be above the law.
You wouldn't call the police idiots for pursuing a burglar who robbed you. But because you clearly feel that one day you maybe able to get these ill-gotten gains for yourself you seem to think it's OK.
Re:Choice of Browsers is MS's Burden? (Score:5, Informative)
Have the standards for posting comments gotten so low that people don't even completely read the submission title? (I already know nobody reads the article or the whole summary even...)
Here's a quick (rough) overview for you and the mods who put you at +5:
1. Microsoft was accused of unfairly using its monopoly in the OS market to get people to use IE over Netscape.
2. Microsoft and the EU came to an agreement that Microsoft would offer a choice of browsers to users., or be punished.
3. Microsoft is now accused of breaking that agreement.
The fact that firefox, opera and safari are easily reachable with a Google search is completely irrelevant. Microsoft made an agreement with the EU and broke it.
And one more thing: No, most computer users do not go and download a browser. You can call them lazy and/or stupid all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that many people just don't care what browser they are using. They turn on the computer, and they start using the internet. The browser is completely irrelevant to them. In the context of Microsoft's OS monopoly in the 90s, it makes perfect sense for users to be asked what browser they want to use up front.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It does ask, you just missed that screen because you're used to clicking through. That was the one where it asked you whether you want "Express settings" or "Custom settings". It lists everything that's included under Express, and that includes Bing for search, accelerators etc. But it doesn't mark either as the default, so you have to explicitly pick Express before clicking "Next".
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't microsoft forced to include notepad alternatives and MSpaint alternatives.
Because what you do with Notepad and MS paint does not affect other users - even if you post their output files on the web they will be standard ASCII or JPG files.
OTOH the pairing of IE and MS's own HTML creation software was distorting the Web in that they used non-standard extensions. That meant that you had to use IE to view or use many websites in the way their creator intended. This was deliberate MS policy to create the impression that other browsers were "broken". This was to get people to use
Re: (Score:2)
Have people become so lazy (or stupid) that they can't even go download a browser by themselves?
Most people never were capable of downloading a browser themselves. As far as 90% of users are concerned, the PC is like a TV, an appliance, with which to access Facebook and maybe a few other functions like e-mail. They would not think of changing their browser (which to them is an integral part of their valuable purchase) any more than they would change the inlet manifold on their Volvo.
Fuck sake people. Me thinks this is just another big government money grab. After all, EU governments have a lot of mouths to feed.
So how do you suggest a corporation should be punished for breaking a legal agreement? Execute the chairman? Torture
Source of the rule (Score:4, Insightful)
The rule is not a rule about operating systems that come with a pre-installed browser, it is a rule set in an agreement that Microsoft entered into with the EU as part of the settlement of charges related to Microsoft illegally leveraging an existing monopoly in the personal computer operating system market.
The makers of the operating systems you make have not entered into similar agreements, or even been charged with the same offense.
Its like asking why parole terms that apply to a particular convict don't apply to other citizens who haven't been convicted of (or even charged with) the crime that the convict was convicted of, much less subjected to similar parole terms.
Re: (Score:2)
>Never grasped the concept behind this ruling. IE is essentially integrated into the OS. It's free. There are tons of free browsers out there.
That's because you have no sense of history and why browsers became free (as in cost).
Microsoft abused its monopoly position to essentially make it impossible for anyone to market a browser that was paid for by the users. They licensed Spyglass Mosaic, promising Spyglass that Microsoft would remit a percentage of revenue to Spyglass. Spyglass thought this was gre
Breaking a legally-binding agreement (Score:3)
Breaking a legally-binding agreement that they entered into rather than raising an actual defense against charges that they violated European antitrust law.
Which legally-binding agreement entered into to settle past charges does Apple break with OS X and/or iOS?
Re: (Score:2)
no, its not. Its like an alcoholic thinking they've been dry for a couple of years and so its ok to start drinking again...
Allowing Microsoft to install only IE is much the same thing - the temptation to put just one little Windows-only extension in will be too great, and next thing you know, you're using MetroUI and wondering why your head hurts.
Its bad enough that Windows 8 will come with a single browser that works in the Metro side of things [cnet.com] (subject to the others figuring out how to fully replace it, w
Re: (Score:2)
Bureaucrats need their 18 hours of sleep per day.
Re: (Score:2)
7 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts thrown around for fixing the financial crisis you Americans kicked off.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the $7B will come in handy for supporting the EU member states' addiction to spending and entitlements.
Unfortunately they are addicted to spending it on Windows and Office.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows needs IE so people can download the other web browsers you fucking European trash twits..
No it does not. Another browser can be downloaded with FTP protocol. MS could write a relatively small user-friendly app employing FTP to do the download and installation without involving IE. Perhaps that is what this browser choice screen is already?
U.S should move all their troops out of Europe and back home ... If EU does not like windows method maybe they should use Linux or BSD.
I heartily agree wi